1971-03-16 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY MARCH 16, 1971
The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President La Croix presiding. The Pledge of
Allegiance was led by Councilman Fore and was followed by a most inspiring Invocation delivered by
Lieutenant Commander Lester Westling, Jr., Chaplain at the Naval Air Station.
ROLL CALL:
The roll was called and Councilmen Fore, Levy, Longaker, McCall and President La Croix, Jr., (5),
were noted present. Absent: None.
MINUTES:
1. The minutes of the regular meeting held March 2, 1971, were approved as transcribed.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
2. From Mr. V. W. Dennen, 1926 Everett Street, suggesting agencies for procuring City, State and
Federal licenses and permits be consolidated as an aid to prospective new businessmen.
President La Croix commented that the suggestion had merit but was, in all fairness, somewhat impractical
as the agencies function in separate areas with separate responsibilities.
At the suggestion of Councilman McCall, it was directed that copies of the communication be sent to the
City's representatives on the County, State and Federal level.
3. ., From the Eastbay Chapter, National Safety Council, signed by Mr. Robert M. Bales, President, asking
favorable consideration of its request for funds under its formula for fiscal year 1971 -1972.
It was stated the amount budgeted for this purpose during the current fiscal year was $550. Councilman
Longaker moved the same sum be appropriated for the Eastbay Chapter of the National Safety Council for
fiscal year 1971 -1972. Councilman Levy seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote.
Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
4.' From Bay Farm Island Reclamation District No. 2105, signed by Mr. Bruce T. Mitchell, Secretary,
requesting approval of Warrant No. 174 in the amount of $50,000 to replenish the revolving fund.
The matter was referred to "Resolutions ".
5. 4 From Messrs. William D. Gallaher and Joe Fiorentino, 2145 Santa Clara Avenue, claiming excessive
apartment rental rates.
It was directed that this communication be forwarded to the Alameda Real Estate Board for its information
and any action it might wish to take.
6. V From Mrs. George R. Osborne, 656 Westline Drive, requesting legal assistance at Planning Board
meetings.
President La Croix stated he questioned the necessity of having the City Attorney sit in on meetings of the
Board as all legal evidence could be presented by the Planning Director, who had expertise in these matters.
At any time a legal opinion was required, the matter could be returned to the City Attorney, who would
supply legal advice upon questions submitted to the staff or the Director. He felt it would be asking too
much of the City Attorney to request that he attend all Planning Board meetings and be present on all
matters presented to the Board.
City Attorney Cunningham was requested to reply to Mrs. Osborne's letter.
7. From Park Street District Association, signed by Mr. Joseph L. Jimenez, President, requesting coopera-
tion in phasing out large billboards on store roofs in the Park Street area.
President La Croix commented that he felt the suggestion had a great deal of merit, but he would like to
know the status of the billboard contracts of the City and the thinking of the Planning Director and staff
on the matter.
Councilman Levy expressed his approval of the letter in that it indicated the Business Associations were
engaged in improvement programs and had so informed the Council.
After some discussion, the City Attorney and the Planning Director were requested to make an inventory of
billboards in the City and to submit to the Council a report on the subject.
8. From A. V. Barnhill, Application for Permit to Dredge by Clamshell approximately 500 cubic yards of
material at Barnhill Marina, 2394 Webster Street. The application was accompanied by the required $5,000
bond, which had been approved by the President and the City Attorney.
City Engineer Hanna stated the purpose of the dredging was to open up a small area for additional berthing
and a comporter. The material was to be removed from the area. It was stated applicable permits had been
received from other involved agencies.
Upon advice of the City Attorney, Councilman Longaker moved the Permit be granted as requested, subject to
all legal obligations and the requirements of the City Engineer being fulfilled. Councilman Fore seconded
the motion.
After an exchange of questions and answers between Councilman McCall and Mr. Hanna, the question was put
and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA:
9. Mr. Frank Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, requested the opportunity to speak on Item No. 10 of
"Resolutions".
10. Mr. V. N. Vukasin, 19710 Spruce Street, Castro Valley, requested that he be allowed to speak on
Item No. 1 under "Reports and Recommendations".
HEARINGS:
11. In the Matter of a Petition to Rezone from the "R-5", General Apartment, to the "R-4", Neighborhood
Apartment District, certain properties on the easterly side of Broadway from Lincoln Avenue to Santa
Clara Avenue. The Petition had been filed by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Kopp. The Planning Board had recom-
mended the application be denied.
The Clerk stated there was on hand the Affidavit of Publication of the Notice of Hearing on the matter
and the minutes of the Planning Board meeting at which the petition was considered had been sent to the
Councilmen.
A communication had been received from Mesdames Catherine Snow, Ann E. Neesdorn, Shirley A. Goodman and
Dottie Reynoldson, urging that the Murphy property remain in the "R-5" District.
Also handed to the Clerk just prior to this meeting had been a petition signed by seventeen residents and
letters signed by Aster Wayne and Ruth M. Smith, 1506 Broadway, and Mrs. Dolores Ford, 2606 Lincoln Avenue,
in favor of the proposed rezoning.
On request, Mr. Donald Johnson, Planning Director, reviewed the action of the Board as set forth in its
letter dated February 25, 1971. He said the area totaled 22 parcels fronting on Santa Clara Avenue,
Broadway, Lincoln Avenue and St. Margaret's Court. The total area was 98,815 square feet or approximately
2.3 acres. He recounted the statistics set forth in the Rezoning Petition Study - 59.3% of the area was
in single-family use, 12.8% in two-family, 14.5% in three-family and 13.4% in four-family use. The area
contained a private tennis court, 6,720 square feet of which was within the proposed zone change area.
The tennis court used portions of six parcels, four in the subject area, and approximately 480 square
feet of the court lay in the presently "R-4" zoned area adjacent on the east of the subject parcels.
Mr. Johnson said the area was characterized by moderate density, large single-family dwelling units in
good to fair condition. Lot areas were on the small side, with only six of the 22 parcels exceeding 5,000
square feet. He said the application was unusual in that it proposed a use and density decrease, thirteen
of the seventeen property owners had entered into the application, one owner owned properties within the
area and, in addition to the existing tennis school, there was a nursery school which was not operating
at this time. The matter was also unusual in that it was potentially a test case for other areas of the
City.
Mr. Johnson stated a complicating factor was that of alleged devaluation should this zone change occur.
He explained that maximum reconstruction to the existing "R-5" zone would be extremely difficult and
impractical, if not impossible, for at least seventeen of the 22 parcels and pointed out the tennis court
would tend to affect future construction if it were to continue to exist. He said it would appear that
the seventeen smaller parcels would not suffer any devaluation under "R-4" zoning although this would be
possible if the larger parcels were combined and improved to the maximum residential units under the
existing "R-5" zoning. The properties at 1514 and 1518 Broadway might suffer devaluation; the present
and potential values of the remaining large parcels at 1516 Broadway, 2611 and 2615 Santa Clara Avenue,
which contained the tennis court, were difficult to determine.
It was brought out that the present tennis activities would not be changed by a rezoning under non-
conforming use privilege; that schools, public and private, were permitted uses in any residential zone
with a Use Permit and the activity was not at issue nor jeopardized.
Mr. Johnson stated, following the Board's action denying the application, the staff had been requested
to specifically quantify the areas and ownerships appearing in support or protest. Of the 22 parcels,
owners of thirteen were in support, seven were in protest and owners of two parcels were uncommitted.
Of the 98,815 square feet of areas, owners of 44,805 square feet supported the petition, owners of
44,245 square feet were in protest, and 6,765 square feet were uncommitted. Petitions had been received
in support and in protest, signed by many unverified signatories, all petitions tending to be wide-ranging
in representation as to districts within the City.
On question, Mr. Johnson stated the Planning staff had felt, although not with a strong position, that
there was more to recommend the "R-4" zoning than the "R-5", simply because most of the parcels and most
of the area was in use which would be more benefited under "R-4".
Mr. Cunningham stated the issue before the Council was whether the findings and recommendations of the
Board and its advisory report, based upon Section 11-175 of the Municipal Code, should be sustained,
modified or over-ruled.
In calling for proponents, President La Croix pointed out that the Council had previously heard much of
the evidence in this, case and urged that personalities and innuendoes be avoided.
Mrs. Audrey Kopp, 2609 Santa Clara Avenue, appeared. She said she represented the "majority" of property
owners, who were requesting the reclassification to the "R-4" zone and strongly urged the change be made.
She distributed copies of a petition study and zone map which, she said, the petitioners had not been
furnished before the Planning Board meeting. She said she had requested after the Board Hearing on Febru-
ary 22 that the area owned by all the petitioners be calculated and it had been found they were in the
majority. On this basis, Mrs. Kopp said, it was felt an error had been made at the Board Hearing when it
was said the majority of owners of land parcels were opposed to the proposal.
Mrs. Kopp pointed out on the zone map that the properties in question were already surrounded primarily
by "R -4 ", "R -1" and "R -2" zoning. She said she and the other petitioners were asking to be included and
to be united in the existing "R -4" District because they felt this would be for the betterment of all and
provide greater harmony for all, plus the enhancement of the surrounding existing residential area. She
pointed out that the petitioners were opposed to high density and any future development of three and
four -story apartment buildings which would lead to more congestion and hoise in the neighborhood and the
City. They were also opposed to a business operating for a profit in the neighborhood unless it conformed
to the rules and policies governing Use Permits. She said they had no wish to deprive anyone of his rights
or freedom and a Use Permit would not be unduly restrictive. She said the main concern was to meet the
request of the majority that their equal rights and freedom would not be denied and they felt a Use Permit
would insure greater harmony and improvement to the neighborhood and to the City.
Mrs. Kopp alleged that police records indicated clearly that, during the last five years, there had been a
definite increase of traffic accidents at Broadway and Santa Clara and Lincoln Avenues, and that small
school -age children crossed the intersections going to and from school. She argued against the potential
of 86 dwelling units in the "R -5" District as compared to the refreshing 55 units in the "R -4" and reiterated
her position against high density. She also called attention to Mr. Johnson's statement that if the proper-
ties at 1514, 1516 and 1518 Broadway were combined this would allow 26 units and 39 or more vehicles upon
the already congested streets. She strongly urged that serious consideration be given to the rights and
freedom of the majority requesting the zone change.
Mr. Robert Kopp then addressed the Council, commenting on a memorandum from the Planning staff to the
Board that since the rezoning of the area to the "R -5" classification there had been little or no redevelop-
ment and it appeared to be rather static except for the construction of the tennis court. He commented
on various statements made at the Board Hearing and expressed the opinion that Mr. and Mrs. Murphy, opponents
of the proposal, were not interested in rebuilding on their properties but were interested only in business,
which the petitioners desired to reduce or eliminate.
Mr. Otto W. Sammet, 2624 Janis Circle, expressed the opinion that since one -half of the block was zoned
"R -4 ", there should be no objection to changing the remainder to that classification. He pointed out that
a better class of apartments could be built in the "R -4" than in "R -5" and would demand higher rents, so
there would be no financial loss if apartments were built. He said people wanting to be surrounded by
business establishments should locate in a business zone and not jeopardize the homes, welfare and happiness
of others. Mr. Sammet quoted from the General Plan and urged that the Council grant the rezoning.
On the call for opponents, Mr. Edward Murphy, 2618 Janis Circle, came forward. He requested a legal opinion
as to whether due process of law entitled him or his legal attorney to cross - examine people giving testimony
which would encourage deprivation of his property, and whether he was entitled to such cross- examination
in these proceedings.
Mr. Cunningham stated procedural due process did not give either side the right to cross - examine prior
speakers as this was a public hearing and not a trial. He pointed out the issues had already been defined
and the Hearing should be confined to them.
Mr. Murphy then stated he felt it would be unwise for the Council to take action to reclassify the subject
properties from the "R -5" to the "R -4" District because (1) there was a question of legality and (2) he
felt it had not been substantially argued that the "R -5" zoning was unreasonable. He pointed out there
was considerable commercial activity in the vicinity of Broadway and Santa Clara Avenue and, according to
the Zoning Ordinance, there should be a buffer zone between commercial and what he called "hard- core"
residential zones such as the "R -4" District. He argued that there were other "R -5" packages in the general
vicinity which were smaller than the subject area, claiming that density was a complex issue which was not
adequately treated by rezoning a miniscule portion of the "R -5" lots in the City. He pleaded for protection
of the minority rights and questioned whether it was right to rezone the subject area, in view of the fact
that a substantial number of people were not in favor of the proposal.
Insofar as property values were concerned, Mr. Murphy said, he and his wife had had the foresight to
accumulate eleven lots in the area under discussion, five of which were in the "R -4" zone and six in the
"R -5 ". He said he believed the parcels could be included in a "PD" situation and developed as they wished
and they did not like to be restricted. He said everything could be done in an "R -5" zone which could be
done in the "R -4 ", but the reverse was not true. He said he wanted what the City had said he could have
when he bought the property, and added that he had been told if the properties should be rezoned to "R -4 ",
this would be done only under unusual circumstances and it might be an across - the -board change. He said
he would not mind if the City were to conduct a study and require greater square footage per unit in all
"R -5" Districts but he objected to a change which seemed to be aimed at one particular lot in one area
controlled primarily by his family.
Mr. Murphy expressed the opinion, in connection with the recommendations of the Planning Director and staff,
that the area was not static. He said he had been unaware that a portion of the tennis court was in the
"R -4" zone, that it had been constructed in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer, and he
did not have a Use Permit for its operation. It was explained that approximately six inches of the court
was in the "R -4" District. He said if he should wish to construct another tennis court he would not like
to be obliged to come to the City for permission, and for this reason he did not want the zoning changed
to "R -4 ".
Mr. Murphy said he felt the City should not deprive him of the present use of his property without any
mention of compensation; he felt the density issue contained many factors which deserved careful study and
these problems should not be swept aside and a spot rezoning made. He also pointed out it had been the
unanimous recommendation of the members of the Planning Board present that the proposed change was not
advisable and expressed the thought that rezoning the area as requested would be below the stature of the
City.
Mr. John Barni, Jr., 1825 Clinton Avenue, reviewed the history of the zoning in the area under discussion
and said he could not agree that the "R -5" zone should be changed after people like Mr. Murphy had
purchased property with knowledge of what they were buying. He expressed the opinion that any change in
zone would make very little difference to most of the petitioners because of the small size of their lots
but it would have a dramatic effect on the larger parcels. He also commented on the property values
being reduced by such action and the possibility that the value of the property could be reduced below
the loan value in some instances. He said he felt it would be to the best interests of the City if the
Council were to follow the Board's recommendation in this matter.
Mr. John Barni, Sr., 1364 East Shore Drive, pointed out that downgrading the lots in question would consti-
tute a substantial loss in value to the Murphy - Romani family. He commented that all those wishing the
rezoning had been aware of the zoning when they had purchased their properties. He pointed out that one
unit per 1,000 square feet could be constructed in the "R -5" District whereas the "R -4" required 1,500
square feet, in addition to which there were other advantages without having to obtain a variance. He
emphasized the fact that all members of the Board who were present had been unanimous in rendering the
decision and he urged that the Council do likewise.
Mrs. Kopp, on rebuttal, submitted the question of legality as concerned the majority of the property owners
in the area in question and their rights and freedom, also Mr. Murphy's claim that he was being deprived
of his property. She pointed out this was not the fact as the proposal was merely to change the zone.
As to his claim that many of the lots were not buildable, she said it was necessary only to look at the
zoning petition study indicating the number of units which could be placed on the parcels, that all property
owners had buildable lots and they all had something to lose in the issue. She remarked that several of
the City parks contained tennis courts and swimming pools open to the public. She said she was not object-
ing to the business operations which would be allowed under the "R -5" zoning so long as they would be under
a Use Permit to insure harmony within the residential neighborhood in question.
Mrs. Madlyn Murphy, on rebuttal, pointed out if they wished to construct another tennis court and they
were under a Use Permit they would have to come to the City for permission, whereas in the "R -5" District
they would not be so restricted. She said she felt they should be allowed to decide whether they wanted
another tennis court as this was one of the reasons they had purchased the land, to develop it. She said
there was a serious shortage of courts in the City because there had not been any new ones constructed in
many years and the population had increased. Also, she said there was no other place where one could
take private tennis lessons and they felt this was a service to the community. Mrs. Murphy stated it had
been said that no personalities were involved in this case but it seemed peculiar that one block was
chosen to be down - zoned, and she felt the matter of the tennis court and the swimming pool had influenced
people who had signed the petitions supporting the rezoning. She said the pool which they were construct-
ing had been planned primarily for her use as she did not play tennis and was called a "commercial" swim-
ming pool, requiring certain health permits and filter and safety devices. She said there was no intention
to have children come and pay a fee to go swimming.
The Hearing was declared closed and comments were invited from the Councilmen and the staff.
On question, Mr. Johnson stated the property in question had been zoned "R -5" at the time the present
Zoning Ordinance was adopted on August 1, 1958. He explained the circumstances under which a Use Permit
would be required for the swimming pool - if it was to be opened up as a swimming school such a Permit
would be required but if Mr. Murphy were to give occasional private lessons to an incidental person, it
would not be qualified as such a school and no Use Permit would be required. He said it was his under-
standing that the pool was to be used, at the greatest, as an instructional device along with the tennis
school now operated by Mr. Murphy.
Councilman Longaker inquired as to the legal responsibility of the City and whether it might be sued if
Mr. Murphy were to be deprived of his rights in terms of building possibilities and potential. Mr.
Cunningham stated it was a possibility but this was not always the governing consideration. Many of the
City's acts inevitably would deprive a person of property rights, substantial or otherwise, and therein
would lie the division as to the success of such litigation.
President La Croix confirmed Mr. Johnson's statement that he felt the "R -4" zone would be more compatible
with the area and that the majority of square footage was held by the petitioners. He asked the pleasure
of the Council.
Councilman Fore moved the recommendation of the Planning Board be sustained and the petition for rezoning
the area in question be denied. Councilman Longaker stated in view of the fact that this land had been
zoned "R -5" in 1958 and that the Murphys had purchased their properties since that time with the know-
ledge that this was the zoning, he felt there was no alternative but to uphold the action of the Board
and he would second the motion.
Speaking on the question, Councilman McCall recalled the history of one of the Murphy properties and said
he felt Mr. Murphy must have known the conditions when he made the purchase. He said he felt sorry for
the Murphys in purchasing the property in what he would call a residential area with predominantly single -
family dwellings, regardless of the zoning, but he said he would not care to have the tennis court and
the swimming pool adjacent to his rear yard.
Councilman Longaker said he would agree but the Murphys had not violated any law.
President La Croix said, in all fairness, he found on the age and condition analysis the only properties
mentioned as poor or fair were two belonging to the Murphys and one belonging to Mr. Viss, who apparently
had his property up for sale. He said he felt strongly that possibly errors had been made in the past,
that the City fathers had felt the business area would move farther east than it did and had seen fit to
rezone accordingly, but this had not taken place. He said he felt the pride of ownership evidenced in
the smaller properties, the families who had put a great deal of money into their properties, and he would
have to agree that the area of "R -4" and "R -1" was more compatible to rezoning to "R -4" than it would be
to "R -5 ", so he felt the change to "R -4" would be the best action the Council could take.
Councilman McCall stated he felt the tennis court was there to stay and the swimming pool was being built
as a private pool by the Murphys, which they had a right to do. If it should become a commercial operation
this would be a different situation and it would become a neighborhood problem.
The question was put and the motion lost on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Councilmen Fore and
Longaker, (2). Noes: Councilmen Levy, McCall and President La Croix, Jr., (3). Absent: None.
Upon advice of the City Attorney, Councilman Levy then moved the recommendation of the Planning Board be
over -ruled and the rezoning be granted as requested. Councilman McCall seconded the motion.
Speaking on the question, Councilman McCall explained he was not opposed to "R -5" zoning in the City but
in view of the facts which had been presented he felt the motion was the only one logical.
The question was put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Councilmen Levy,
McCall and President La Croix, Jr., (3). Noes: Councilmen Fore and Longaker, (2). Absent: None.
There being no objections, the order of business proceeded to "introduction of Ordinances ".
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:
12. Councilman Levy introduced the following ordinance, after which it would be laid over under provision
of law and the Charter:
"Ordinance No.
New Series
An Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Property Within the
City of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, New Series."
Councilman McCall seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Councilmen
Levy, McCall and President La Croix, Jr., (3). Noes: Councilmen Fore and Longaker, (2). Absent: None.
After a ten- minute recess, the meeting reconvened under the regular order of business.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
13. ' From the City Manager, recommending bids be rejected for the project of Installing a Storm Sewer in
Wood Street from Eagle Avenue to the North End of Wood Street and the project be re- advertised. Two bids
had been received.
Mr. V. N. Vukasin, who had requested the opportunity to speak
said he was the apparent low bidder on the project and it was
the construction industry that the City was legally right and
tioned the moral right of the City to reject current bids and
he had gone to the expense and effort of submitting a bid and
said he had had the same experience in the past and expressed
projects for the City of Alameda in the future.
on this subject, addressed the Council. He
his opinion and that of his compatriots in
financially wrong or right, but they ques-
call for new quotations, pointing out that
also his price had been exposed. Mr. Vukasin
doubt that he would feel inclined to bid on
President La Croix said he felt he spoke for the other members of the Council in sympathizing with Mr.
Vukasin's position, but that the position of the Council was one of protecting the taxpayer's dollar. He
pointed out the bids received on the project had been found to be high and there was nothing to do but to
protect the citizens by rejecting the quotations and re- advertising the project, hoping that a lower price
might be obtained.
Mr. Weller stated, for the record, that the recommendation had not been based on the receipt of only two
bids but on the Engineer's estimate and the fact that the lower quotation was more than 17% above the
estimate. He remarked that during the last few years the Engineer's estimate had consistently been higher
than the bids received. He assured Mr. Vukasin that the recommendation had not been lightly made and
explained the City's position in the matter.
After some further discussion, Councilman Levy moved the recommendation be accepted, the bids be rejected
and the project be re- advertised. Councilman McCall seconded the motion which carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
14. From the City Manager, recommending approval of the Final Map for the subdivision known as Tract
No. 3253, twelve -unit condominium development on Willow Street between Whitehall Place and Sandcreek Way.
It was stated that this matter would be continued to the next regular meeting of the Council on April 6,
1971
15.' From the Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, recommending approval of the Tentative Map for the
subdivision known as Tract No. 3299, subject to the terms and conditions of the City Engineer's Report
dated March 5, 1971. This was a proposed eight -unit condominium subdivision at 2709 Central Avenue.
Councilman McCall moved the recommendation be adopted, and the Tentative Map for said Tract No. 3299 be
approved, subject to the terms and conditions of the City Engineer's Report dated March 5, 1971. Council-
man Levy seconded the motion.
Speaking on the question, Councilman McCall expressed approval of this proposal to divide a presently
constructed eight -unit apartment building into an eight -unit condominium subdivision, with single- family
ownership. He raised a question with regard to the requirements of the Bureau of Electricity.
Mr. C. Phillip Nutzman, 2720 Bayview Drive, representing the developer, stated the units had individual
electrical meters and there was a separate meter for the outside and hallway lighting. He said the cost
of the outside separate meter and the maintenance of the so- called common area would be condominium common
area costs, which would be included in an itemized statement of costs which would be submitted to the
prospective buyer. The only other meter in the building would be for the gas water heater which would also
be a common area cost. Mr. Nutzman said it had been stated at the Planning Board meeting that it would be
so stipulated and all prospective owners would be so notified. He said it was the intention of the
Company to completely fulfill all requirements of the City Engineer's Report.
Mr. Cunningham stated that in fairness to Mr. Nutzman, his Company, and the Council he felt it should be
revealed that, according to Mr. Nutzman, this was one of several of such developments and it was their
position, since this was a division of ownership only and not of property, that technically they did not
need to comply with the off - street parking requirements. He said he had made no decision on this point
and recommended that the Council likewise make no decision. It had been suggested, and Mr. Nutzman had
indicated that he would file an application for a variance seeking relief from the two -to -one parking
requirements without prejudice to him and to his people, to assert, meanwhile, that he did not have to
comply with the two -to -one requirements. He said this was not germane to the particular subdivision
under discussion but it should be said that the question would come up in connection with similar pro-
posals in the future.
The question was then put and the motion carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes:
None. Absent: None.
16. From the City Manager, recommending that the Final Map for the subdivision known as Tract No. 3270
be approved. This was for the Lindsey, Gallagher and Willett condominium development at Portola Avenue
and Ninth Street.
Mr. Gottstein, in accordance with his request, was invited to speak on this matter. He complained that
the view would be closed off from his properties on Ninth Street and Portola Avenue, and from the children
in the neighborhood. It was suggested that Mr. Gottstein discuss the matter with the subdividers.
The matter was referred to "Resolutions ".
17. From the City Manager, recommending contract be awarded to East Bay Dodge, Inc., low bidder, for
furnishing four Sedans for the Police Department at a net price of $9,618.92.
Councilman McCall moved the recommendation be adopted, that the contract be awarded to the designated
company for furnishing the four Sedans for the Police Department at the price quoted. Councilman Levy
seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent:
None.
18.v From the City Manager, recommending contract be awarded to International Harvester Company, low
bidder, for furnishing one Two -ton Dump Truck for the Golf Course at the net price of $5,806.48.
Councilman Longaker moved the recommendation be approved, that the contract be awarded to the specified
company for the Dump Truck for the Golf Course, at the price quoted. Councilman McCall seconded the
motion which. carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
19.1 From the City Manager, reporting all work satisfactorily completed on the project of Replacement
of a Sanitary Sewer on the North Side of Encinal Avenue between High Street and Fernside Boulevard,
recommending it be accepted and the Notice of Completion be ordered filed.
Councilman McCall moved the recommendation be followed, that the work on said project be accepted and the
Notice of Completion be filed. Councilman Levy seconded the motion which carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
20.v Councilman Longaker commented that the problem of the City Dump became more and more apparent and
inquired how high it would go.
Mr. Hanna said there was no specific limit on the height but the problem of what to do with refuse was a
significant one which had not been solved in many communities and certainly not in the Bay Area. He said
a break - through was awaited from several directions, one involving anew type of incinerator which had
great promise for satisfying the City's needs. He said there were other opportunities also, all of which
would involve significant decisions by the City. He said a break - through was hoped for almost monthly
in one of the directions, and at such time the City would have to switch over to a new system of disposal.
There was brief discussion on the problem.
NEW BUSINESS:
21. Councilman Fore requested that the City Clerk read a letter, a copy of which he had received,
addressed to Mr. John Malone of California Packing Corporation from Mr. R. L. Antraccoli of The Galleon
Restaurant. Mr. Antraccoli complained that customers and employees recently had been unable to get
through traffic on Thau Way due to the operation of the Flea Market on the Island Drive -In Theatre
property, stating Thau Way had been blocked with parked cars each Sunday between 10:00 o'clock a.m. and
4:00 o'clock p.m.
Councilman Fore said he had been the victim of similar circumstances. He said he understood that under
the terms of the Permit granted for this operation, the area was to be policed to prevent traffic problems.
The City Manager was requested to contact the holder of the Use Permit in this matter in an attempt to
have the condition corrected.
221
RESOLUTIONS:
22./ The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7746
Appointing Member of the City Planning Board." (Mrs. Frank A. Ratto)
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and carried on the following roll call
vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
Mrs. Ratto, who was in the audience, was requested to stand and be recognized. She received a hearty
round of applause.
232 The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7747
Approving Warrant No. 174 of Board of Trustees of Reclamation District
No. 2105."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore and carried on the following roll call
vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: President La Croix, Jr., (1). Absent: None.
24. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7748
Declaring Canvass of Returns and Result of General Municipal Election
Consolidated with Special Municipal Charter Amendment Election Held
on March 9, 1971."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Longaker and carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
25. "Resolution No.
Approving Final Map of Condominium Subdivision Known as Tract 3253,
Authorizing Execution of Agreement for Construction of Public Improve-
ments Therein, Accepting a Certain Easement, and Approving Faithful
Performance Bond as to Sufficiency (West side of Willow Street Between
Sandcreek Way and Whitehall Place - Wayne H. Craycroft, Bruno G. Santone,
Rovetta M. Santone, Joan P. Alexander, Grant H. Alexander, John Thayer
Fee and Marion S. Fee, Subdividers)."
It was stated the resolution would be held over to the next regular meeting of the Council on April 6, 1971.
26. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Fore, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7749
Providing for Local Cooperation by the City of Alameda in Connection
with the Project for the Improvement of Estuary Channel (Oakland
Inner Harbor)."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
Mr. Weller said it had been his understanding that there would be no significant out-of-pocket costs in
connection with this project.
27. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7750
Declaring Intention to Vacate Portion of Public Utility Easement,
Fixing Date of Hearing Thereon, and Ordering Publication and Posting
of Notice Thereof (Southerly Three Feet of Tract 3271)."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore and carried on the following roll call
vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
28. y/ The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Fore, who moved its, adoption:
"Resolution No. 7751
Adopting Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans for Resurfacing
of Various Streets-in the City of Alameda, Calling for Bids and
Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
29. ' The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7752
Adopting Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans for Installation
of a Storm Sewer in Wood Street from Eagle Avenue to the North End,
Calling for Bids and Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
30. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7753
Adopting Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans for Culvert
Removal at Mound Street and Van Buren Street, Calling for Bids and
Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
31. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7754
Approving Final Map of Condominium Subdivision Known as Tract 3270,
Authorizing Execution of Agreement for Construction of Public Improve-
ments Therein, Accepting Certain Easements, and Approving Faithful
Performance Bond as to Sufficiency (Portola Avenue and Ninth Street -
Lindsey, Gallagher and Willett, a Partnership, Subdividers)."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and carried on the following roll
call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
32. After a statement by the City Engineer, in reply to questioning by the City Attorney, that it was
not necessary to hold up adoption of this resolution pending approval of the Final Map on this Tract, the
following resolution was introduced by Councilman Longaker, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7755
Ordering Vacation of Unused Public Service Easement (Public Utility
Easement - Within Tract 3253)."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore and carried on the following roll call
vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
The President declared the foregoing Resolutions adopted.
BILLS:
33. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total
amount of $72,100.56, was presented to the Council at this meeting.
The List was accompanied by certification from the City Manager that the Claims shown were correct.
Councilman Levy moved the bills as itemized in the List of Claims filed with the City Clerk on March 16,
1971, and presented to the City Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Fore and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL:
34. Mr. John Barni, Sr., 1364 East Shore Drive, recalled that he had spoken to members of the Council
some time ago with regard to noise emanating from the Oakland Airport. He said about three weeks pre-
viously on a Saturday night motors were being tested and the noise, lasting for about thirty minutes,
was excessively loud. He suggested a letter might be in order from the City Council to the Port Authority
requesting that the abuse be corrected.
Councilman McCall said this was one of the problems which came up for consideration by the Bay Area
Regional Airport Study Committee. He suggested a telephone call by Mr. Weller to Mr. Ben Nutter of the
Port of Oakland would suffice as he felt the airplane companies were very conscious of bad publicity.
Mr. Weller said he would be glad to telephone and also to write a letter with regard to this complaint.
35. Mr. Gottstein said Councilman Fore had stated in connection with the General Municipal Election
that he hoped Mayor -elect La Croix would allow people more opportunity to speak in the future. He said
it did not make sense that people come to Council meetings to bring up matters for the good of the City
and they are urged to curtail speaking. He said some years ago oral communications were permitted at
the beginning of the meeting and the President would invite additional comments at the end of the meeting.
He said he felt the Council should appreciate the advice of the citizens, and that the people should have
the opportunity to vote on whether to spend the City's money rather than to have five men spend it.
Mr. Gottstein said he appreciated the friendship of the Councilmen but that politics and friendship did
not mix.
Mr. Gottstein complained that plans were being discussed for a new Post Office and the Department could
not afford to have effective glue on its stamps, also that up-to-date notices were not provided on mail
boxes.
FILING:
36. Financial Report - City of Alameda, as of February 28, 1971.
37. Specifications No. PW 3-71-6 - Resurfacing of Various Streets.
38. Specifications No. PW 3-71-7 - Culvert Removal at Mound Street and Van Buren Street.
39. Specifications No. PW 3-71-8 - Installation of Storm Sewer in Wood Street from Eagle Avenue to
North End.
40. Agreement - Between Lindsey, Gallagher and Willett and City - re Tract No. 3270.
41. Financial and Operating Report - Bureau of Electricity, as of January 31, 1971. Verified by
George A. Hackleman.
ADJOURNMENT:
42. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned, to assemble in
regular session on Tuesday, April 6, 1971, at 7:30 o'clock p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk